Monday, December 17, 2012

Essential reading to understand our current and future fiscal crisises, and those plaguing Europe, is Michael Lewis’s Boomerang. The underlying crisis of democracy in the current time is well documented if one takes that wider view of the various crisis elements and the inability of numerous countries to deal with them

Lewis visits Iceland, Greece, Ireland, and Germany looking to explain the current fiscal woes of all. While the details are best pursued in the book, the gist of the reading is that so many fail to see that current financial arrangements pushed to crisis by their democratic support, are understood by ffew and created by the many. Each crisis has its groups exploiting the democratic system to benefit themselves, fantastic and unsupportable claims by the many to wealth without work, and oddly, a walrus (aka the Beatles I am the Walrus, who see the crises looming and is totally ignored as a rogue of the crazy variety: until things collapse.

He lays a solid basis for the woes of each country, yet through it all he is really looking at the inability of democratic systems to face up to their costs. His goal is easily to compare these places to the United States. The United States is usually pointed out as being different from these Europeans, but the problem is that the United States is not a model of any particular trouble set, it is a model of a combination of them all.

While the fiscal crisis of 2012 has the focus, the long term solutions are all politicall unacceptable to the sides. SO the nation plunges forward over the big class ahead in the future. A nation unable to set priorities achieves none of them. It fails.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

The question liberals must begin to face and answer is if redistribution of wealth is acceptable because of Obama’s belief that it reflects our long term values as Americans, what is the source of those values and are they constitutional as a source of values?

What secular source of values can be cited that all have agreed to in the past that see a societal responsibility exiting for supporting the poor through government? Now remember this must be traditional “American” in nature. It must be long term and agreed upon by the basic membership of the nation. Karl Marx does not qualify. Franklin Roosevelt is too recent.

The problem is no secular source has long term standing and wide acceptance as policy to occupy this position. The source is Christian values. [Of course, Islamic values are even stronger in supporting giving to the poor via the zakat, but this has neither of the factors on its side.] If one just asks the simple question “why” when quizzed about supporting the poor, the values of faith have to be involved. What else carries such a wide charge to people?

All this raises a dilemma for those supporting income redistribution as it must be clearly unconstitutional being based in religion. And, do note they would be the first to want religion separated from government and society.

Being religious and not secular, the Democratic Party is oddly putting Christian values into to play for their own purposes. These are the people least likely to support anything Christina being a part of American life. Indeed the sworn enemies of religion in its totality.

So if the Obama regime continues to make the case that view we must support this given our values, then all those values deserve support or the partial use for this action must be unconstitutional. If supporting the poor is a national value based in faith, then abortion must go, too.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

The often looked at view of Freedom of Religion deals with imposition of religion by the government and a limiting of government’s ability to impose religion. We see this clearly in the “separation of church and state” debate and rulings. The government cannot pick and impose. This has massive support even among religious groups who were, of course, a part of its source.

The question to think about is whether this imposes a denial of religion and its values on government. If denial of anything based on the faiths is a driving force and goal to the country, what else might have to be lost?

The current focus of such can show the implications of this. Rick Santorum is clearly the most religiously focused of the candidates. If one listens to the left the ridicule is immense. Check Jay Leno along. Leno would have been fined an arrested for just the public mention of the topics of his jokes about Santorum in the 1950s. NBC would have faced loss of licenses, stations would have dropped the show, and Leno might have been forced to leave television. Now it is just show biz and acceptable. For Santorum, as was true of John Kennedy, the question of the day is whether these values will be a part of his judgment and decision-making as president.

If values of decency, self-respect, self-control, support for life, and decency are to left at the gate to the White House, what is left for one to take in? If these values of decency and concern are to be ignored and left out of public debate—meaning that one’s beliefs have no place in public government and debate—what of the other values brought to society by religion? If these are not proper for public debate and policy, what else remains?

1. Helping the poor is a clear message of the Christina Church. It is also a clear sentiment of the Islamic faith given its place as one of the Five Pillars of the faith. Islam takes it a step further by requiring it for salivation. If religious values are to be denied, then can this remain as a public focus. Its history and source are religion. Under current public doctrines, it cannot be a value the government subscribes to. It is religiously based.

2. The Bible is clear that one should not kill. If one follows the liberal practice of taking things to the extreme, then this is a religious value that cannot be apart of public and government life and policy. It is relious and it is just plain decency, but none of this has a part in public debate and policy. If one looks to the current craze of The Hunger Game one can easily see that government intent on the removal of religious values could see murder as religious and, therefore, not the business of government to enforce a ban.

As the left continues its drive for a removal of religion from society and a ridicule of anything that hints of religious values, the end results must be assessed early. Can one go back? Can a value lost be retrieved? Ask anyone if we can go back to the 1950s and live like the media describe people lived and the answer is a no. No equivocation t all. One cannot go home again. Once lost these values are gone. Anything considered decent and reasonable that comes from religion is subject to ridicule and attack. We must ask the question now before the total underpinnings of society are taken from us by liberal purity.